What needs to be accomplished to do this is not technically impossible, just probably expensive.

And it's taken things like recent Nikon's, the Olympus OMD EM5 (whatever) MFT to test with better DR than the larger Canon APS-C sensors. This is the kick in the pants Canon's needed for the last 5+ years.Even the Fuji X100 from a few years ago appeared to have better IQ than my 5D2.

16b would be nice, if they can use at least 14 of them with good data.when really pushing the limits on my D800's 14b raw at base ISO, I can get to a point where I'm seeing random noise and no more shadow detail. If more DR were possible to record it'd actually become hard to use but I certainly won't decline it if it's available.

C'mon Canon, show us what you can do. (even if it means getting humble and licensing better sensor tech from another supplier)

Well, I am drooling with this potential new camera. If the DR is anything close to the promise, I would gladely sell back my D800. I know many will complain that 46MP is not required for their work, but if this is the price to pay to get industry leading DR, sign me up!

Well, I am drooling with this potential new camera. If the DR is anything close to the promise, I would gladely sell back my D800. I know many will complain that 46MP is not required for their work, but if this is the price to pay to get industry leading DR, sign me up!

If it's as good as I have dreams of a 46 MP 1Ds Mark III being, then I may consider buying it as well, even though I don't need it

Logged

2 x 1DXB1G, MAC, GLIAC

Osiris36

If the sensor is a 16-bit sensor with some kind of active cooling (no, not necessarily a fan), and Canon doesn't completely botch the ISO 100 and 200 electronic noise, then it could stomp all over the D800. With an extra two bits of information they could push 15 stops of DR, maybe even a little more (but no more than 16.0.)

My guess is that its still probably their same old sensor tech, but with some kind of efficient cooling to keep the sensor below room temperature (thereby reducing electronic noise), and extra bit depth. Canon needs the active cooling because they are either incapable of innovating and patenting technology similar but different enough to Sony Exmor, or there simply ISN'T another way to reduce noise electronically like Exmor, and Canon either has to pay Sony royalties, or do something entirely different.

Am I wrong in thinking that the amount electronic noise stems from the placement of the image processing unit? Too close to the sensor, too much heat for say video, far enough away to eliminate heat more electronic noise as it passe through the camera? Maybe they should redesign the chip and do a pure imaging camera meant for the absolute best stills possible.

Yes, bluntly. The biggest reason that Nikon/Sony have better 'DR', is because they have a WHOLE lot of ADCs on chip and Canon doesn't. If Canon were to move from 8 channels of readout to something like 32 or 64, they would instantly get a stop more DR. If they manage to get more DR out of a 46mp chip odds are they've gone onchip with the ADC (like Sony) and then their DR would be the same as (or more likely a little better) than Sony (since their Sensel/Pixel tech is apparently a little better than Sony's)

This would be an awesome studio camera if true, but I bet Canon screws it up again by overpricing it. I own both the 5D Mark III and the 1DX as well as several 600EX-RTs and I'm not happy about the prices I paid for any of it. I feel completely violated. Canon have become nothing short of rip-off artists. They need to get back to making great equipment at reasonable prices and real technology innovation. This camera could be a huge step in the right direction if they don't let the marketing team frak up the pricing, because at $10,000 I rather have a Leica S2.

Let's hope Canon learns their lesson from the soon to be 1D-C flop. $15,000 for a camera with features they could have and should have included in the 1DX?!!! Bahahaha. Yeah right Canon. Good luck with that. There are professional video cameras at that price point without all of the DSLR video drawbacks that shoot much more beautiful 4K video. Why would anyone in their right mind pay $15,000 for something that will give them headaches and force workarounds when there are much better options on the market dedicated to that format? Stupidity and arrogance at it's best from the people at Canon.

If the sensor is a 16-bit sensor with some kind of active cooling (no, not necessarily a fan), and Canon doesn't completely botch the ISO 100 and 200 electronic noise, then it could stomp all over the D800. With an extra two bits of information they could push 15 stops of DR, maybe even a little more (but no more than 16.0.)

My guess is that its still probably their same old sensor tech, but with some kind of efficient cooling to keep the sensor below room temperature (thereby reducing electronic noise), and extra bit depth. Canon needs the active cooling because they are either incapable of innovating and patenting technology similar but different enough to Sony Exmor, or there simply ISN'T another way to reduce noise electronically like Exmor, and Canon either has to pay Sony royalties, or do something entirely different.

Am I wrong in thinking that the amount electronic noise stems from the placement of the image processing unit? Too close to the sensor, too much heat for say video, far enough away to eliminate heat more electronic noise as it passe through the camera? Maybe they should redesign the chip and do a pure imaging camera meant for the absolute best stills possible.

Yes, bluntly. The biggest reason that Nikon/Sony have better 'DR', is because they have a WHOLE lot of ADCs on chip and Canon doesn't. If Canon were to move from 8 channels of readout to something like 32 or 64, they would instantly get a stop more DR. If they manage to get more DR out of a 46mp chip odds are they've gone onchip with the ADC (like Sony) and then their DR would be the same as (or more likely a little better) than Sony (since their Sensel/Pixel tech is apparently a little better than Sony's)

Its more complicated than that. Sony Exmor puts the ADC on the same die as the sensor itself. That shortens the channel distance from pixel to ADC. It is also a hell of a lot more than 64 ADC's...its one per column or few columns, which means there are thousands of ADC's. That allows each ADC to operate at a far lower frequency (since each one only has to process a small fraction of the total pixels in the sensor), and a large part of the reason ADC's add noise to the image is their high operating frequency (which tends to generate electronic noise.)

From what I understand, the 1D X already uses a 16-channel readout (8 channels per Digic 5+ processor). Moving to 32 or 64 channels would complicate the image processor (probably at high cost...high frequency ADC's of the caliber required for something like the 1D X aren't cheap), but probably not allow a full stop DR improvement. Each ADC would still be responsible for processing nearly 720,000 pixels every time an 46.1mp sensor was read out...where as if there was one ADC per column or two columns, each one would only have to read about 5500 or 11000 pixels every time a 46.1mp sensor was read out. By the time you get to the ADC, you've already extracted the pixel...and that pixel already has the bulk of the electronic noise present in the sensor. The ADC will add some, bit its minimal...a bit of additional noise due to the high frequency current and some quantization error noise...both of which look very natural and random. At the same time, its burning in the nasty kinds of noise...fixed pattern, horizontal and vertical banding (crosshatch pattern noise), transistor differential noise (difference in efficiency between each pixel), color noise, etc. Even though you have parallelized pixel conversion 64-fold...each ADC has to work with pixels from a lot of different columns, so they can't really correct vertical banding like a CP-ADC design can.

Canon's pixel technology really isn't better than Sony's. The high ISO capability of the 1D X, 5D III and 6D is thanks to a weaker CFA, which basically allows a lot more green light into the red and blue channels. It was a "cheat", since at the time Canon really didn't have any other way to combat the onslaught of sensor tech improvements from SoNikon. That cheat requires stronger curves to be applied when processing RAW images to compensate and "remove" that extra green in the red and blue channels...so while color can still look great, its not actually as pure and accurate as it could be.

If the sensor is a 16-bit sensor with some kind of active cooling (no, not necessarily a fan), and Canon doesn't completely botch the ISO 100 and 200 electronic noise, then it could stomp all over the D800. With an extra two bits of information they could push 15 stops of DR, maybe even a little more (but no more than 16.0.)

My guess is that its still probably their same old sensor tech, but with some kind of efficient cooling to keep the sensor below room temperature (thereby reducing electronic noise), and extra bit depth. Canon needs the active cooling because they are either incapable of innovating and patenting technology similar but different enough to Sony Exmor, or there simply ISN'T another way to reduce noise electronically like Exmor, and Canon either has to pay Sony royalties, or do something entirely different.

Am I wrong in thinking that the amount electronic noise stems from the placement of the image processing unit? Too close to the sensor, too much heat for say video, far enough away to eliminate heat more electronic noise as it passe through the camera? Maybe they should redesign the chip and do a pure imaging camera meant for the absolute best stills possible.

Yes, bluntly. The biggest reason that Nikon/Sony have better 'DR', is because they have a WHOLE lot of ADCs on chip and Canon doesn't. If Canon were to move from 8 channels of readout to something like 32 or 64, they would instantly get a stop more DR. If they manage to get more DR out of a 46mp chip odds are they've gone onchip with the ADC (like Sony) and then their DR would be the same as (or more likely a little better) than Sony (since their Sensel/Pixel tech is apparently a little better than Sony's)

Its more complicated than that. Sony Exmor puts the ADC on the same die as the sensor itself. That shortens the channel distance from pixel to ADC. It is also a hell of a lot more than 64 ADC's...its one per column or few columns, which means there are thousands of ADC's. That allows each ADC to operate at a far lower frequency (since each one only has to process a small fraction of the total pixels in the sensor), and a large part of the reason ADC's add noise to the image is their high operating frequency (which tends to generate electronic noise.)

From what I understand, the 1D X already uses a 16-channel readout (8 channels per Digic 5+ processor). Moving to 32 or 64 channels would complicate the image processor (probably at high cost...high frequency ADC's of the caliber required for something like the 1D X aren't cheap), but probably not allow a full stop DR improvement. Each ADC would still be responsible for processing nearly 720,000 pixels every time an 46.1mp sensor was read out...where as if there was one ADC per column or two columns, each one would only have to read about 5500 or 11000 pixels every time a 46.1mp sensor was read out. By the time you get to the ADC, you've already extracted the pixel...and that pixel already has the bulk of the electronic noise present in the sensor. The ADC will add some, bit its minimal...a bit of additional noise due to the high frequency current and some quantization error noise...both of which look very natural and random. At the same time, its burning in the nasty kinds of noise...fixed pattern, horizontal and vertical banding (crosshatch pattern noise), transistor differential noise (difference in efficiency between each pixel), color noise, etc. Even though you have parallelized pixel conversion 64-fold...each ADC has to work with pixels from a lot of different columns, so they can't really correct vertical banding like a CP-ADC design can.

Canon's pixel technology really isn't better than Sony's. The high ISO capability of the 1D X, 5D III and 6D is thanks to a weaker CFA, which basically allows a lot more green light into the red and blue channels. It was a "cheat", since at the time Canon really didn't have any other way to combat the onslaught of sensor tech improvements from SoNikon. That cheat requires stronger curves to be applied when processing RAW images to compensate and "remove" that extra green in the red and blue channels...so while color can still look great, its not actually as pure and accurate as it could be.

If you re-read my post you'll notice I said Sony whole lot of ADCs on chip, so I'm not sure what you're taking issue with in my post. I was merely saying that if Canon runs more (and slower) ADCs their noise will improve (or more accurately, the accuracy of their ADC conversion will improve). Sony runs one ADC 'light' per column. I'm not convinced that's entirely necessary, but I also think Canon's 8 channels is too few.

Also the ADCs don't have to be on the image processor, once you run through the ADC there is no need to keep the signals all that short. There's no reason Canon couldn't mount 4 discrete 8 channel ADCs around the sensor and then haul the digital signals from there.

The big difference is high-speed ADCs usually have higher error rates than slow ADCs, and that's why the Exmor wins. The signal distance is a really trivial portion of what makes the onchip ADC special, the fact that they can operate much slower is what makes them 'good'.

Finally Canon's CFA isn't a cheat, any more than anyone else's CFA is a cheat. Canon's CFA is actually the closest to 'right' in terms of balanced performance across normal lighting spectrum. I'm assuming you're basing color accuracy on DXO's CFA measurements which really have very little to do with color accuracy at all.

I thought we had all gone over this many time before that a square sensor cannot exist due to mirror clearance issues (unless of course it is 24mm x 24mm, which would be pointless)?

in case you did not notice we just put a rover on mars. the easiest way is to make the camera mirrorless.

and hey im not saying canon will do that im just saying it is rumored.

We do not only put it on mars :-D we put a freaking rocket powered flying crane on mars and lowered it from that After letting it fly 563,000,000 km trough Space! Just 2,4 km away from the spot we wanted That is just like hitting a hair 280 Km away

So let canon-engineers do there job and bring us something new! square-sensor ? problem with moving mirror ? let it stay and make its reflectivity electronic controllable you are skeptical about that? look at you automatic dimming rear mirror in you car ... its exactly that

WHY are some people complaining about too much resolution? This camera will most likely come with mRAW and sRAW function anyway.

You'd have the resolution when you wanted it, but could dial it back for a lot of other shots.

Simple.

You do realize that mRAW and sRAW are not actually RAW images, right? For all intents and purposes, they are the same thing as JPEG...YCC encoded and compressed data converted into an image comprised of chromaticity and liminance components that do NOT represent the "raw" sensor state at time of read. I've worked with both mRAW and sRAW. You have far less editing freedom in post than you do with an actual RAW image. The range of exposure tuning freedom is limited to a couple stops at most, particularly in the brighter highlights and deeper shadows.

If someone doesn't have the computer horsepower to edit 46mp images (which IS a real-world concern...many Nikon D800 users complain that its 36mp images are too much for their computers to handle), then image size can indeed be a concern. On the flip side, bitching about the mere rumor of a 46.1mp camera is still ridiculous...if you don't want it, don't buy it!! If you want something in the 20mp range, then buy a friggin camera with 20mp. For those of us who do have the digital horsepower to crunch 46mp images in post and want a high resolution camera, more power to Canon and I really hope the thing sees the light of day!